1 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Norbert Schmitt University of Nottingham
Introduction In the last 25 years, the field of second language acquisition has seen the reemergence of interest in one area of language study, vocabulary (Meara, 1987), and the appearance of a newly recognized aspect - learner strategies. Appreciation of the importance of both these areas has led to considerable research in each, yet the place where they intersect -vocabulary learning strategies- has attracted a noticeable lack of attention. The research which has been done on vocabulary learning strategies has tended to deal with individual or small numbers of strategies, with very few studies looking at the group as a whole. The current state of the area is typified by the lack of a comprehensive list or taxonomy of lexically-focused strategies. This chapter will first overview some general conclusions about vocabulary learning strategies which can be made from prior strategy research. Then a taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies will be proposed and the individual strategies discussed in more detail. Finally, there will be a report on the results of a large-scale study undertaken to assess which vocabulary learning strategies learners actually use and how helpful they believe them to be. General Conclusions About Vocabulary Learning Strategies Research into the area of language strategies began in earnest in the 1970s as part of the movement away from a predominantly teachingoriented perspective, to one which included interest in how the actions of learners might affect their acquisition of language (acquisition and learning will be used interchangeably in this chapter). Concurrently, there was a growing awareness that aptitude was not the governing factor in language learning success, implying that language achievement depended quite heavily on the individual learner's endeavours. This naturally led to a greater interest in how individual learners approached and controlled their own learning and use of language. (For summaries of the development of language strategy research, see Rubin, 1987; Skehan, 1989; for book-length treatments of learner strategies, see Wenden and Rubin, 1987; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; McDonough, 1995).
2 In the beginning, the emphasis was on identifying beneficial language strategies. Stern (1975) developed a list of ten strategies based on introspection, but most researchers tried to identify the strategies that 'good learners' use (ie. Rubin, 1975; Naiman et al., 1978; Wong-Fillmore, 1979; O'Malley et al., 1985). While a variety of strategies were being identified, researchers were also attempting to develop a categorization framework which could adequately describe them. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) divide language learning strategies into three major types: metacognitve (strategies for overviewing the processes of language use and learning, and for taking steps to efficiently plan and regulate those processes), cognitive (strategies which involve the manipulation of information in an immediate task for the purpose of acquiring or retaining that information) and social/affective (strategies dealing with interpersonal relationships and those which deal with controlling one's emotional constraints). Each of these major categories describe a large number of strategies, so more detailed taxonomies are possible. Oxford (1990) has attempted one of the most comprehensive classification systems to date. It includes six major strategy categories, including Memory, Cognitive, Compensation, Metacognitive, Affective and Social. In the process of identifying and categorizing language strategies, many studies dealt indirectly with strategies specifically applicable to vocabulary learning. In fact, as O'Malley et al. (1985, p. 561) note, "Training research on learning strategies with second languages has been limited almost exclusively to cognitive applications with vocabulary tasks". Despite this, few individual vocabulary strategies have been researched in any depth, the main exceptions being guessing from context (Huckin, Haynes, and Coady, 1993) and certain mnemonics like the Keyword Method (Pressely, Levin, and Miller, 1982; Pressely et al., 1982a. Nevertheless, combining the results from general learning strategy research with those from more vocabulary-specific studies allow us to derive a number of tentative general conclusions about vocabulary learning strategies. First, it seems that many learners do use strategies for learning vocabulary, especially when compared to more integrated tasks. Chamot (1987) found that high school ESL learners reported more strategy use for vocabulary learning than for any other language learning activity, including listening comprehension, oral presentation, and social communication. This might be due to the relatively discrete nature of vocabulary learning compared to more integrated language activities, like giving oral presentations, making it easier to apply strategies effectively. It may also be due to the fact that classrooms tend to emphasize discrete activities over integrative ones. On the other hand, the higher strategy use may be a result of learners' awareness of the importance of vocabulary. Horwitz (1988) found that a substantial number of the ESL students completing her questionnaire (ranging between 25% and 39%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the most important part of learning
3 a foreign language is learning vocabulary. We also have some idea of which vocabulary strategies are most commonly used. In a longitudinal experiment, Cohen and Aphek (1981) found that most students simply tried to memorize the words which they did not know. Ahmed (1989) described different types of learners and found that most took notes on vocabulary, or wrote notes in the margins of their books. O'Malley et al. (1985), found that repetition was the most commonly mentioned strategy, with strategies requiring more active manipulation of information (imagery, inferencing, Keyword Method) being much less frequent. So it seems that more mechanical strategies are often favored over more complex ones. On the face of it, this propensity toward a more basic type of strategy is disappointing, considering that evidence from the field of cognitive psychology indicates activities requiring a deeper, more involved manipulation of information promote more effective learning [The Depth of Processing Hypothesis] (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Craik and Tulving, 1975). Indeed, research into some 'deeper' vocabulary learning strategies, such as forming associations (Cohen and Aphek, 1981) and using the Keyword Method (Pressley, Levin, and Miller, 1982; Pressley et al., 1982a) have been shown to enhance retention of target words. But this must be balanced against the fact that relatively shallow strategies can be effective too. Nation (1982) surveyed research into word lists, and concluded they are an effective way for learning a great deal of vocabulary in a short time. Even rote repetition can be effective if students are accustomed to using it (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990). If a generalization can be made, shallower activities may be more suitable for beginners, because they contain less material which may only distract a novice, while intermediate or advanced learners can benefit from the context usually included in deeper activities (Cohen and Aphek, 1981). Results from two of the few studies which have looked at vocabulary learning strategies as group suggest that active management of strategy use is important. Ahmed (1989) used a cluster analysis technique to isolate five kinds of learners typified by the kind of strategies they used. The subjects in the three 'good learner' groups used a variety of strategies, were aware of their learning, knew the importance of learning words in context, and were conscious of the semantic relationships between new and previously-learned L2 words. 'Poor learner' subjects used few strategies and showed little awareness of how to learn new words or how to connect the new words to old knowledge. This theme is echoed by Sanaoui (1995), who found two distinct approaches to vocabulary learning: subjects either structured their vocabulary learning, independently engaged in a variety of learning activities, and reviewed and practiced their target words, or they did not. When considering which vocabulary learning strategies to recommend to our students, we should remember Politzer and McGroarty's (1985)
4 warning that strategies should not be considered inherently good, but are dependent on the context in which they are used. Thus, the effectiveness with which learning strategies can be both taught and used will depend on a number of variables, including "proficiency level, task, text, language modality, background knowledge, context of learning, target language, and learner characteristics" (Chamot and Rubin, 1994, p. 772). For vocabulary, culture is another learner characteristic which has been shown to be important. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) found that Hispanics who had strategy training improved their vocabulary scores compared to the Hispanic control group, but Asians in the strategy training groups (who resisted training) performed worse than the Asian control group who used their familiar rote repetition strategy. In addition, a study by Schmitt et al. (in press) showed that learners from different culture groups sometimes have quite different opinions about the usefulness of various vocabulary learning strategies. Language proficiency may play an even greater role in determining a vocabulary strategy's effectiveness. For example, word lists proved better for beginning students, but more advanced students benefitted more from contextualized words (Cohen and Aphek, 1981). Cohen and Aphek (1980) found that if students were more proficient initially, they were better able to use associations in recall tasks. In choosing vocabulary learning strategies, the frequency of occurrence of a word is also relevant; Nation (1994) suggests that teaching students strategies is especially important when it comes to dealing with low frequency words. He argues that vocabulary can be considered from a cost/benefit viewpoint: high frequency words are so essential that the 'cost' of teaching them is justified by the resulting benefit, but low frequency words will not generally be met often enough to merit individual explicit teaching. Since teaching time is not justified on these low frequency words, he suggests teaching three strategies to help students deal with them: guessing from context, using mnemonic techniques, and using word parts (Nation, 1990, Chapter 9). Some of the insights gained from the research and scholarly discussion of vocabulary learning strategies are filtering down into vocabulary materials. Many of the newer vocabulary learning materials give prominence to introducing strategies (although not necessarily labeled as such) which the learner can use independently to improve their vocabulary, such as A Way with Words (Redman and Ellis, 1989), Common Threads (Sökman, 1992), and English Vocabulary in Use (McCarthy and O'Dell, 1994). One book on general strategy instruction includes a chapter which explicitly introduces learners to a number of the strategies included in the following taxonomy (Ellis and Sinclair, 1989). Developing A Vocabulary Learning Strategies Taxonomy
5 Skehan (1989) states that the area of learner strategies is still in an embryonic state. He was referring to the general field, but the fact that his statement holds especially true for vocabulary learning strategies is strikingly illustrated by the lack of any comprehensive list or taxonomy of strategies in this specific area. One reason why vocabulary learning strategies have not been discussed much as a class is precisely because of this lack of an existing inventory of individual strategies. In order to address this gap, this section will attempt to present as complete a list of vocabulary learning strategies as possible. It will then attempt to classify them according to one of the current descriptive systems. Compilation of the taxonomy The definition of learning strategy used in this chapter is adapted from Rubin (1987, p. 29) in which learning is "the process by which information is obtained, stored, retrieved, and used", although here 'use' will mainly be defined as vocabulary practice rather than interactional communication. Therefore vocabulary learning strategies could be any which affect this rather broadly-defined process. Some of the strategies in the taxonomy have been classified as communication or production strategies by other scholars (ie. paraphrase the meaning of a word, Loci Method), and indeed many strategies have the potential to be used for more than just a single purpose. Because these 'multi-purpose' strategies can clearly be used for learning vocabulary, they are included in the taxonomy. The majority of the strategies listed were compiled for the survey study of Japanese learners discussed later in the chapter. The compilation process drew on various sources. First, a number of vocabulary reference books and textbooks were examined, providing the majority of the initial strategies. Second, Japanese intermediate-level students were asked to write a report on how they studied English vocabulary words. Several additional strategies were gleaned from these reports. Third, several teachers were asked to review the list and add any strategies they were aware of from their own experience. Considering the multiple sources consulted, it was felt that the initial listing of 40 strategies was likely to be relatively comprehensive. It was therefore humbling to find just how many omissions there were (sometimes seemingly obvious ones). The survey responses indicated six additional strategies, while others were added as a result of subsequent reading, introspection, and conversations with other teachers. The present taxonomy contains 58 strategies. It should not be viewed as exhaustive, but rather as a dynamic working inventory which suggests the major strategies. In practice, it was quite difficult to decide where to draw the line between
6 different strategies and their numerous variations. For example, classmates could ask each other for translations, paraphrases, examples of the new word in a sentence, a picture illustrating the new word's meaning, etc. If every possible permutation was listed, the list would have soon become too cumbersome to be of any practical use. We attempted to include all major strategies on this list; however it is admitted that the process of deciding which variations to incorporate depended on the author's subjective judgement. Categorizing the taxonomy Once the list of strategies was compiled, the next step was to organize it according to some framework. Several classification systems for learning strategies have been proposed (Bialystok, 1981; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 1987). Such systems based on description are not the only possibility, however. Recent research by Stoffer (1995) shows considerable promise in providing an empirical basis for category assignment. A factor analysis of the 53 items on her vocabulary strategy survey showed they clustered into nine groups: 1) strategies involving authentic language use 2) strategies involving creative activities 3) strategies used for self-motivation 4) strategies used to create mental linkages 5) memory strategies 6) visual/auditory strategies 7) strategies involving physical action 8) strategies used to overcome anxiety and 9) strategies used to organize words. Of the more established systems, the one developed by Oxford (1990) seemed best able to capture and organize the wide variety of vocabulary learning strategies identified. The part of her strategy system most useful for this purpose consists of four strategy groups: Social, Memory, Cognitive, and Metacognitive. Social Strategies (SOC) use interaction with other people to improve language learning. Approaches which relate new material to existing knowledge fall into the Memory Strategies (MEM) category. Cognitive Strategies (COG) exhibit the common function of "manipulation or transformation of the target language by the learner" (Oxford, 1990:43). Finally, Metacognitive Strategies (MET) involve a conscious overview of the learning process and making decisions about planning, monitoring, or evaluating the best ways to study. (See below for fuller explanations.) Although generally suitable, Oxford's classification system was unsatisfactory in categorizing vocabulary-specific strategies in several respects. Most importantly, there is no category in Oxford's taxonomy which adequately describes the kind of strategies used by an individual when faced with discovering a new word's meaning without recourse to another person's expertise. It was therefore necessary to create a new category for these strategies: Determination Strategies (DET).
7 Secondly, Oxford's categories proved inadequate in places, as some strategies could easily fit into two or more groups, making their classification difficult. For example, Interacting with native speakers is obviously a Social Strategy, but if it is part of an overall language learning plan, it could also be a Metacognitive Strategy. As previously mentioned, strategies are affected by a number of factors, and different intended purposes for a strategy in different situations can affect its classification. Also, it is often unclear whether some strategies should be classified as Memory Strategies or Cognitive Strategies. In the case of vocabulary, the goal of both is to assist recall of words through some form of language manipulation, so some other criteria must be invoked. Purpura (1994) divides storing and memory strategies into six areas: (a) repeating, (b) using mechanical means, (c) associating, (d) linking with prior knowledge, (e) using imagery, and (f) summarizing. This taxonomy will consider strategies most similar to (a) and (b) as Cognitive Strategies since they are less obviously linked to mental manipulation, and those most similar to (c), (d), and (e) as Memory Strategies since they are somewhat closer to traditional mnemonic techniques which either organize mental information together or transform it in a way which makes it more memorable (Bellezza, 1981). This imprecision in categorization is not desirable, but, as Oxford (1990: 16-22) points out, strategy research is in its infancy and so categories are still fluid and open to debate. A more basic, but still helpful, distinction between vocabulary activities has been suggested by Cook and Mayer (1983) and Nation (1990). It is between vocabulary activities which are useful for (a) the initial discovery of a word's meaning and (b) remembering that word once it has been introduced. When encountering a word for the first time, learners must use their knowledge of the language, contextual clues, or reference materials to figure out the new meaning (Determination Strategies), or ask someone else who knows (Social Strategies). These strategies for gaining initial information about a new word are labeled Discovery Strategies. Of course, there are various other kinds of knowledge about words besides meaning, such as word class, spelling, collocations, and register (Richards, 1976), but determining the meaning appropriate to the situation must normally be the most fundamental task on initial introduction. Once learners have been introduced to a new word, it is worthwhile to make some effort to remember it using Consolidation Strategies, which can come from the Social, Memory, Cognitive, or Metacognitive Strategy groups. In addition to the problem of strategy classification, several strategies have value as both Discovery and Consolidation Strategies. In reality, almost all of the Discovery Strategies could conceivably be used as Consolidation Strategies, but only the most obvious are listed in both sections of the taxonomy, such as utilizing Word Lists and Affixes and
8 Roots.
A Taxonomy Of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Table 1 presents the resulting taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies. It is organized according to both the Oxford (1990) system and the Discovery/Consolidation distinction. The figures summarize the results of the survey research detailed later in this chapter. The USE figure refers to the percentage of total respondents who indicated they use that particular strategy, while the HELPFUL figure indicates the percentage who felt the strategy was helpful for learning vocabulary. Table l A Taxonomy Of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Strategy Group
Strategy
Use %
Helpful %
Strategies for the Discovery of a New Word's Meaning DET DET DET DET DET DET DET DET DET
Analyze part of speech Analyze affixes and roots Check for L1 cognate Analyze any available pictures or gestures Guess from textual context Bilingual dictionary Monolingual dictionary Word lists Flash cards
SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC
Ask teacher for an L1 translation Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym of new word Ask teacher for a sentence including the new word Ask classmates for meaning Discover new meaning through group work activity
32 47 35 ---
73
15 11 74 85
45 42 24 35
75 84 77 ---
65
69 40 73 95
61 86 78 65
Strategies for Consolidating a Word Once it has been Encountered SOC Study and practice meaning in a group SOC Teacher checks students' flash cards or word lists for accuracy SOC Interact with native-speakers MEM Study word with a pictorial representation
30 3 --
51 39 --
--
--
9 of its meaning MEM Image word's meaning MEM Connect word to a personal experience MEM Associate the word with its coordinates MEM Connect the word to its synonyms and antonyms MEM Use Semantic maps MEM Use 'scales' for gradable adjectives MEM Peg Method MEM Loci Method MEM Group words together to study them MEM Group words together spatially on a page MEM Use new word in sentences MEM Group words together within a storyline MEM Study the spelling of a word MEM Study the sound of a word MEM Say new word aloud when studying MEM Image word form MEM Underline initial letter of the word MEM Configuration MEM Use Keyword Method MEM Affixes and Roots (remembering) MEM Part of Speech (remembering) MEM Paraphrase the words meaning MEM Use cognates in study MEM Learn the words of an idiom together MEM Use Physical action when learning a word MEM Use semantic feature grids COG COG COG COG COG COG COG COG COG
Verbal repetition Written Repetition Word Lists Flash Cards Take notes in class Use the vocabulary section in your textbook Listen to tape of word lists Put English labels on physical objects Keep a vocabulary notebook
MET Use English-language media (songs, movies, newscasts, etc.) MET Testing oneself with word tests MET Use spaced word practice MET Skip or pass new word MET Continue to study word over time
50
16 ---
69 32 -13 30 10 13
76 76 54 25 64
--
37 13 41 9
--18 -74 60 -14 40 48 --
48 ---
--
41
38
62 ---
91 22 -31 73 34 49
84 91 67 65 84
--
62 54 88 47
--82 -87 81 -61 77 77 --
76 ---
---45
16
--87
10 -- = Strategy was not included on the initial list used in the survey Discussion Of The Vocabulary Learning Strategies Taxonomy Discovery strategies Determination Strategies If learners do not know a word, they must discover its meaning by guessing from their structural knowledge of the language, guessing from an L1 cognate, guessing from context, using reference materials, or asking someone else. Determination Strategies facilitate gaining knowledge of a new word from the first four options. Learners may be able to discern the new word's part of speech, which can help in the guessing process. They can also obtain hints about meaning from its root or affixes, although not always reliably. Clarke and Nation (1980) warn that analysis of word parts can lead to erroneous meanings and thus suggest that this strategy is better used as a confirmation of guesses from context. Though it has not been included on the taxonomy, Narang, Motta, and Bouchard (1974) suggest that structural analysis of compound words and contractions can be useful as well. Cognates are words in different languages which have descended from a common parent word, such as Mutter in German and mother in English. Languages also borrow words from other languages, and these loanwords often retain similarities in form and meaning (e.g. the Indo-European loanwords in Finnish - auto, firma, golf, numero). If the target L2 is closely related to a learner's L1, cognates can be an excellent resource for both guessing the meaning of and remembering new words. Of course, learners do not automatically accept cognates as equivalent. Learners are generally more willing to believe that the prototypical meaning senses of a cognate are transferable across languages compared to nontypical senses (Kellerman, 1978). Also, the willingness of learners to accept that another language (L1, L3, etc.) can be useful in learning their L2 (in this case by using cognates) depends on the perceived distance between the two languages (Ringbom, 1986). Guessing an unknown word's meaning from context has been widely promoted in the last two decades as it has been seen to fit in more comfortably with the communicative approach than other, more discrete, Discovery Strategies. Context should be taken to mean more than just textual context, however, since contextual clues can come from a variety of sources. Pictures have been shown to be useful if learners focus on them (Levin, 1983; Paivio, 1983). If the discourse is spoken, gestures or intonation can give clues to meaning. Nevertheless, guessing from context most commonly refers to inferring a word's meaning from the surrounding words in a written text. The considerable research on textual inferencing
11 shows that it can be a major way of acquiring new vocabulary, but that it also has prerequisites. First, the learner must have a certain level of language proficiency in order to use this strategy, including the ability to accurately decode the orthographical form of new words (see Ryan, this volume). The learner must also have adequate background knowledge of the subject and the strategic knowledge of how to effectively go through the inferencing process. In addition, the context itself must be rich enough with clues to enable guessing, with the most easily utilizable clues being in close proximity to the target word (see Huckin, Haynes, and Coady, 1993; Nagy, this volume). A third way of initially finding a word's meaning is through reference materials, primarily dictionaries (see Scholfield, this volume). Even though they are prone to certain shortcomings (Scholfield, 1982), bilingual dictionaries seem to be used much more extensively than monolingual dictionaries by L2 language learners (Tomaszczyk, 1979; Baxter, 1980). This is despite the finding that Tomaszczyk's subjects generally felt the information available in bilingual dictionaries was inferior to that available in their monolingual counterparts. One way around this contradiction is to include more and better information in future bilingual dictionaries. A move in this direction is the Word Routes series of bilingual dictionaries (1994-), which presents words in a succession of semantic fields instead of the normal alphabetical ordering. Monolingual learners dictionaries themselves have been much improved by a careful consideration of the kinds of information learners need and also the use of large corpora to ensure natural usage. Word lists, and their more mobile manifestation - flash cards, have fallen out of favor in the communicative era, as many teachers believe that words should only be presented in context. However, Nation (1982) surveyed the research and concluded that the average learner was able to master large numbers of words using this technique, and that the learning did not wear off quickly. He suggests that word lists can be very useful for initial exposures to a new word, but after that, the partially-learned words need to be enriched with additional information. Schmitt and Schmitt (1995) illustrated how this could be done with a vocabulary notebook: new words are first learned as translation pairs, and then are enriched in various ways, such as with semantic maps or by being used in sentences. Social Strategies A second way to discover a new meaning employs the Social Strategy of asking someone who knows. Teachers are often in this position, and they can be asked to give help in a variety of ways: giving the L1 translation if they know it, giving a synonym, giving a definition by paraphrase, using the new word in a sentence, or any combination of these. L1 translations have
12 the advantage of being fast, easily understood by students, and make possible the transfer of all the knowledge a student has of the L1 word (collocations, associations, etc.) onto the L2 equivalent. The disadvantages are that the teacher must know the learners' mother tongue, and that most translation pairs are not exact equivalents, so that some erroneous knowledge may be transferred. Likewise, though synonyms have similar meanings, students need to know collocational, stylistic, and syntactic differences in order to use them effectively in a productive mode (Martin, 1984). Paraphrasing well involves similar kinds of complexities (Scholfield, 1980). Of course classmates or friends can be asked for meaning in all of the above ways, but to condense the taxonomy, only the general item 'Ask classmates for meaning' is listed. In addition, learners can be introduced to new words and discover their meanings through group work. Consolidation strategies Social Strategies Besides the initial discovery of a word, group work can be used to learn or practice vocabulary (Nation, 1977). Dansereau (1988) lists some of the benefits various researchers have attributed to cooperative group learning: it promotes active processing of information and cross modeling/imitation, the social context enhances motivation of the participants, cooperative learning can prepare the participants for 'team activities' outside the classroom, and because there is less instructor intervention, students have more time to actually use and manipulate language in class. Another Social strategy, probably infrequently used, involves students enlisting teachers to check their work for accuracy (Kramsch, 1979), especially flash cards and word lists, since these are commonly used for independent learning outside of class. If input is a key element in language acquisition (Krashen, 1982), then it would seem that interacting with native-speakers would be an excellent way to gain vocabulary. Although it would be hard to prove this empirically, there is indirect evidence to support this intuitive assumption. Milton and Meara (1995) found that one group of nonnative-speakers enrolled in a British university (presuming a reasonably large amount of native-speaker interaction) averaged vocabulary gains of 1325 words per six months, compared to an average 275 word gain previously in their home countries. Memory Strategies Most Memory Strategies (traditionally known as mnemonics) involve relating the word to be retained with some previously learned knowledge, using some form of imagery, or grouping. As Thompson (1987: 43) explains, "...
13 mnemonics work by utilizing some well-known principles of psychology: a retrieval plan is developed during encoding, and mental imagery, both visual and verbal, is used. They help individuals learn faster and recall better because they aid the integration of new material into existing cognitive units and because they provide retrieval cues." This integration also involves the kind of elaborative mental processing that the Depth of Processing Hypothesis (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Craik and Tulving, 1975) suggests is necessary for long term retention (Ellis, this volume). A new word can be integrated into many kinds of existing knowledge (ie. previous experiences or known words) or images can be custom-made for retrieval (ie., images of the word's form or meaning attributes). (For further discussion of the benefits and potential limitations of mnemonic methods, see Thompson, 1987, to which this section is indebted.) Pictures/imagery New words can be learned by studying them with pictures of their meaning instead of definitions. Pairing L2 words with pictures has been shown to be better than pairing them with their L1 equivalents in Russian (Kopstein and Roshal, 1954) and Indonesian (Webber, 1978). Alternatively, learners can create their own mental images of a word's meaning. Imagery has been shown to be more effective than mere repetition for reading passages (Steingart and Glock, 1979) and sentences (Saltz and Donnenwerth-Nolan, 1981), suggesting it could well be more effective for vocabulary too. New words can also be associated with a particularly vivid personal experience of the underlying concept, for example, a learner mentally connecting the word snow to a memory of playing in the snow while a child. Related words Likewise, new words can be linked to L2 words which the student already knows. Usually this involves some type of sense relationship, such as coordination (appleother kinds of fruit like pears, cherries, or peaches), synonymy (irritatedannoyed), or antonymy (deadalive). Word association research has shown that coordinates in particular have very strong connective bonds (Aitchison, 1987). These and other sense relationships (hyponymy and meronymy) can be illustrated with semantic maps, which are often used to help consolidate vocabulary (Oxford, 1990). Some words, particularly gradable adjectives, have meanings relative to other words in their set. For example, in any given situation, big is larger than medium-sized, but smaller than huge. A helpful way to remember these words is to set them in a scale (huge/big/medium-sized/small/tiny) (Gairns and Redman, 1986).
14 Unrelated words The learner can also link words together that have no sense relationships. One way of doing this is with 'peg' or 'hook' words. One first memorizes a rhyme like 'one is a bun, two is a shoe, three is a tree etc'. Then an image is created of the word to be remembered and the peg word. If the first word to be remembered is chair, then an image is made of a bun (peg word) resting on a chair. Recitation of the rhyme draws up these images, which in turn prompt the target words. English-speaking learners of French, studying the same number of words for both methods, remembered twice as many using pegwords than rote memorization (Paivio and Desrochers, 1979). Similarly, a spatial mnemonic can be used to memorize unrelated words. In the Loci Method, one recalls a familiar place, such as a street, and mentally places the first item to be recalled in the first location, the second item in the second location, and so on. To recall the items, one mentally proceeds along the landmarks and retrieves the items which have been associated with each location. Subjects could recall more L1 words after one and five weeks using this method than other subjects using rote memorization (Groninger, 1971). In an L2 study, subjects using this method remembered twice as many words (Bower, 1973). Grouping Grouping is an important way to aid recall, and people seem to organize words into groups naturally without prompting. In free-recall studies, L1 subjects were given lists of words to study and then recall in any order. Typically, words belonging to each meaning category are recalled together, for example, all animals first, before moving on to another category like names (Bousfield, 1953). If the words are organized in some way before memorization, recall is improved (Cofer, Bruce, and Reicher, 1966; Craik and Tulving, 1975). The above L1 studies show grouping works for nativespeakers, and there is no reason to believe it does not do the same L2 learners. It may work better for more proficient learners, however, as they favored grouping strategies more than beginners did (Chamot, 1984, cited in Thompson, 1987). Words can also be grouped spatially on a page in some sort of pattern. Belleza (1983) found that L1 words grouped on the page in the shape of rectangles, pluses, Xs, Zs, and Ks, were better recalled both immediately and after one week than words arranged in columns. Listing L1 words diagonally down the page resulted in better recall than listing them in a single column (Decker & Wheatley, 1982).
15 Words can be grouped together in a very natural way by using the target word in sentences. Similarly, words can be grouped together in a story. The narrative chain method has been shown to be highly effective with L1 undergraduates, who recalled six-to-seven times as many words with this method than with rote memorization (Bower and Clark, 1969). Word's orthographical or phonological form Another kind of mnemonic strategy involves focusing on the target word's orthographical or phonological form to facilitate recall. One can explicitly study the spelling or pronunciation of a word. Other options are to visualize the orthographical form of a word in an attempt to remember it or to make a mental representation of the sound of a word, perhaps making use of rhyming words. The initial letter of a word has been shown to be the most prominent feature in word recognition, with word shape being less important (Marchbanks and Levin, 1965; Timko, 1970). The learner can make these two features more salient by underlining the first letter or by outlining the word with lines (configuration), ie. elephant. [EDITOR NOTE - NEED TO OUTLINE ABOVE AND BELOW EXAMPLE WORD 'ELEPHANT'] A method which combines the phonological forms and meanings of L1 and L2 words is perhaps the most researched mnemonic strategy of all. The Keyword Method entails a learner finding a L1 word which sounds like the target L2 word, ie. the English word cat for the Japanese word katana (sword). Then an image combining the two concepts is created, such as a samurai cat waving a sword. When the L2 word is later heard, the sound similarity invokes the created image which prompts the L2 word's meaning. A number of studies have found that the keyword method is highly effective in enhancing the recall of words (Atkinson and Raugh, 1975; Pressley, Levin, and Miller, 1982; Pressely et al., 1982a; Presseley, Levin, and Delaney, 1982). This may depend on giving individual instruction in its use, however, as subjects instructed in groups did not use it effectively (Pressley et al., 1982b). Other memory strategies Just as a structural analysis of words can be useful for determining their meaning, studying a word's affixes, root, and word class is potentially useful as a way of consolidating its meaning. Paraphrasing can be used to teach the meanings of new words (Scholfield, 1980), or it can be used as strategy to compensate for a limited productive vocabulary, especially when a word is temporarily inaccessible (Baxter, 1980). But it can also be used as a Memory Strategy which improves recall of a word by means of the manipulation effort involved in reformulating the word's meaning.
16 Some of the vocabulary people know is originally learned as parts of multiword 'chunks', often as phases, idioms, or proverbs, which are later analyzed into the component words (Nattinger and DeCarrico, 1992; Peters, 1983). One way of increasing one's vocabulary is to analyze and learn the individual words of these chunks, and then use the whole chunk (if it is transparent enough) as a mnemonic device for remembering the individual word meanings. The use of physical action when learning has been shown to facilitate language recall (Saltz and Donnenwerth-Nolan, 1981). Asher (1977) has made it the basis for a whole methodology, the Total Physical Response Method (TPR), which seems to be especially amenable to the teaching of beginners. Indeed, learners sometimes use physical actions spontaneously while learning (O'Malley et al., 1983, cited in Thompson, 1987). Semantic feature grids have often been used in vocabulary materials. It seems their main strength is in illustrating the meaning or collocational differences between sets of similar words (Channell, 1981; Gairns and Redman, 1986; McCarthy, 1990). Cognitive Strategies
Cognitive Strategies in this taxonomy are similar to Memory Strategies, but are not focused so specifically on manipulative mental processing; they include repetition and using mechanical means to study vocabulary. Written and verbal repetition, repeatedly writing or saying a word over and over again, are common strategies in many parts of the world. They are so entrenched that students often resist giving them up to try other ones (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990). Although the Depth of Processing Hypothesis (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Craik and Tulving, 1975) calls their utility in question, it must be admitted that there are many learners who have used these strategies to reach high levels of proficiency. Word lists and flash cards can be used for the initial exposure to a word, but most students continue to use them to review it afterwards. One main advantage of flash cards is that they can be taken almost anywhere and studied when one has a free moment (Brown, 1980). Another is that they can be arranged to create logical groupings of the target words (Gairns and Redman, 1986; Cohen, 1990). Another kind of cognitive strategy is using study aids. Taking notes in class invites learners to create their own personal structure for newly learned words, and also affords the chance for additional exposure during review. Students can also make use of any special vocabulary sections in their
17 textbooks to help them study target words. One expedient for making L2 words salient is to tape L2 labels onto their respective physical objects. Students who prefer a more aural approach to learning can make a tape recording of word lists (or any other vocabulary material) and study by listening. Vocabulary notebooks have been recommended by a number of writers (Allen, 1983: 50; Gairns and Redman, 1986: 95-100; and McCarthy, 1990: 127-29). Schmitt and Schmitt (1995) suggest a type of notebook which incorporates the progressive learning of different kinds of word knowledge for each word, and also the use of expanding rehearsal. Metacognitive Strategies Metacognitive strategies are used by students to control and evaluate their own learning, by having an overview of the learning process in general. As such, they are generally broad strategies, concerned with more efficient learning. To efficiently acquire an L2, it is important to maximize exposure to it. If the L2 is English, the pervasiveness of Englishmedium books, magazines, newspapers, and movies in most parts of the world offer an almost endless resource (if cost is not a problem). The strategy of interacting with native speakers whenever possible also increases input, and could be considered a Metacognitive Strategy if it is used as a controlling principle of language learning. Testing oneself gives input into the effectiveness of one's choice of learning strategies, providing positive reinforcement if progress is being made or a signal to switch strategies if it is not. One can maximize the effectiveness of one's practice time if it is scheduled and organized rather than random. It has been shown that most forgetting occurs soon after the end of a learning session. After that major loss, the rate of forgetting slows. Taking this into account, the 'principle of expanding rehearsal' suggests that learners should review new material soon after the initial meeting, and then at gradually increasing intervals (Pimsleur, 1967; Baddeley 1990: 156-8). One explicit memory schedule proposes reviews 510 minutes after the end of the study period, 24 hours later, one week later, one month later, and finally six months later (Russell, 1979: 149). In a language like English, even native speakers know only a fraction of the vast total of words (Goulden, Nation, and Read, 1990). Thus L2 learners need to realize that they will never learn all the words, and so need to concentrate their limited resources on learning the most useful ones. Part of this involves knowing when to skip or pass a word, especially low frequency ones which they may not meet again for a very long time. Li (1983, cited in Nation 1990: 141) suggests taking several factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to learn a low frequency word when reading: a) Is it
18 a necessary technical word for your field? b) Does it contain affixes or a root which can help you learn it? c) Is it repeated at least twice? The strategy of passing over unknown words is particularly important when the goal is improved reading speed rather than vocabulary growth (Mikulecky, 1990), with the side benefit of increased exposure to words which are already partially known but which need to be recycled. Studies researching the number of exposures necessary to learn a word have results ranging from 5 to 16 or more (Nation, 1990:43-45). This means that the conscious decision to persevere may be one of the most important strategies of all. Which Strategies Do Learners Use and Believe To Be Helpful? The above discussion shows that quite a lot of research has been done which involves vocabulary, although, quite often, the only reason was because vocabulary is a relatively easy language component to measure. Even where researchers have studied vocabulary learning strategies specifically, they have generally concentrated on a small number of types, comparing their effectiveness in facilitating vocabulary gain. Studies which deal with all the strategies as a group (such as Ahmed, 1989) are a logical complement to this previous narrowly-focused approach. When studying vocabulary learning strategies as a unified concept, however, it must not be forgotten that they are for the benefit of the learner. Thus, we must consider our learners' feelings, and take note of what they think of the various learning strategies (Horwitz, 1988; Wenden, 1987). In addition, Hosenfeld (1976: 128) notes that "Too often our focus has been on what students should be doing; we must begin by asking what students are doing." So one way forward is to continue research into which vocabulary learning strategies learners are using, and at the same time ask them how effective they believe those strategies are. A survey study was undertaken for this purpose, using an early version of the above strategy taxonomy. It attempted to answer the following questions: l. What is the pattern of usage of the various vocabulary learning strategies? 2. How helpful do learners perceive the various strategies to be? 3. Do usage and perceptions of helpfulness change as learners mature ? Survey procedure
19 In order to collect data from as many subjects as possible, a survey instrument was created, taking care to avoid some of the problems normally associated with survey research (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990). Although the survey had a high degree of structure in the sense that it offered a list of strategies to the respondents, it also allowed for creativity by inviting them to offer any additional strategies they could think of. The survey was kept anonymous to help counteract the tendency for respondents to answer in a way they think the teacher or researcher would like. A relatively large sample (600) was collected to provided more dependable results. The survey was conducted in Japan, so all subjects spoke Japanese as an L1 and had taken or were taking EFL classes. A broad cross-section of Japanese learners was desired, so surveys were given to four groups: junior high school students, high school students, university students, and adult learners. In each group, there were a total of 150 surveys (3 schools 50 surveys), bringing the total number to 600. The three schools in each group were located in separate towns and represented lower, medium, and higher prestige levels. The assumption was made that students from three different prestige levels of school would together constitute a representative sample of the population as a whole. (Unfortunately we were unable to obtain language proficiency scores for such a large number of subjects.) The exception was the adult learner group. These students were mainly company employees learning English for business or professional purposes in privately-run schools contracted by the respondents' respective companies. Three different language schools were included in the survey. Native-speaking teachers agreed to have their students complete the survey during class time. With the exception of the adult classes, each class had at least fifty students. In classes with more than fifty students, surveys were randomly extracted and put in a surplus pile. If, during scoring, a survey was not completely filled out, or if it seemed obvious the respondent did not understand the instructions, it was discarded and a surplus survey randomly chosen to take its place. The adult classes were smaller, so surveys from several classes were combined to total fifty. The survey was designed to provide a variety of results which could be compared. An explanation of each strategy was listed in Japanese with two spaces next to it. In the first space, respondents were asked to indicate whether they used that particular strategy or not, and on the second, whether they thought it was helpful or not. If a respondent did not use a strategy, they were asked to respond whether they thought it sounded helpful. Next, they were asked to rate the top five most helpful strategies for both the Discovery and Consolidation sections. Thus, the survey provided information on strategy use, perceptions of individual strategy helpfulness, and a rating of the most helpful Discovery and Consolidation Strategies. Additionally, since the results from each schooling group were tallied separately, trends between the four groups could be isolated.
20 Results The percentage of respondents indicating YES to whether they used each strategy or not was calculated and the results are given in Table 1. The rank figure indicates position out of the 40 strategies which were included in the survey. It is difficult to draw conclusions about strategies occurring in the middle of the range, since there is no group trend, only individual preference. The more interesting results occur at extremes of the range, where the majority of learners indicate that they either use a strategy or not.
Table 1 Most Used Strategies Rank /40 Discover Meaning 1. 2/3.
Bilingual dictionary
% 85
4/5. 6. 7.
Guess from textual context 74 Ask classmates for meaning 73
8. 9. 10.
Consolidate Meaning
Verbal repetition Written repetition Study the spelling of a word Say new word aloud when studying Take notes in class Study the sound of a word Word lists
%
76 76
74
69 60
64
54
Least Used Strategies 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
Check for L1 cognate
11
Use physical action Use cognates in study 10 Use semantic maps Teachers check flash 3 cards for accuracy
13 9
The Discovery Strategy column makes clear that in Japan there is a strong affinity for the bilingual dictionary. It was the most used strategy of all, supporting Baxter's (1980) claim of its widespread use in Japan. But 74% of respondents also reported that they guessed meaning from context, which should be encouraging to teachers who believe in its importance. The only other frequently used Discovery Strategy was asking classmates, at 73%. As for the Consolidation category, there is a preference for strategies which focus on a word's form. Repetition of a word's verbal or written form (presumably thinking of its meaning as well) are at the top of the list. This can, at least partially, be attributable to the study style encouraged by the Japanese school system; students are required to memorize English grammar and vocabulary, usually through repetition. Often, vocabulary is presented via word lists, on which word form and meaning are usually the only foci. The other most-used strategies show an even clearer emphasis on form (study spelling, say new word aloud, study sound of word).
It is not surprising that cognates are relatively unused in Japan. Japanese is not an Indo-European language, and so there are simply few if any cognates to take advantage of. (A different situation exists with loan words; a large number of English loanwords have entered Japanese and are readily available for use if Japanese learners can overcome the phonological differences.) As cognates are virtually nonexistent, it is unlikely that the 10% of respondents who checked 'Yes' actually used cognates in their EFL language study. They may have answered the item with loanwords in mind, but even if this were so, it would seem that use of this kind of crosslinguistic strategy is very limited. It is important to note, however, that in cases where a language has a large number of cognates, L1-based strategies are much more common. The other three least-used strategies are unsurprising, considering Japanese schools tend to favor traditional vocabulary teaching techniques and these strategies were probably never introduced to the respondents. TABLE 2 Most Helpful Strategies Rank /41 Discover Meaning 1. 2/3.
Bilingual dictionary
% 95
4. 5/6. 7. 8. 10.
Ask teacher for paraphrase 86 /synonym
Consolidate Meaning Say new word aloud when studying Written repetition Connect word with synonyms/antonyms Continue over time Study spelling
% 91 91
87
Take notes in class
Analyze pictures/gestures 84
Skip or pass new word
16
Verbal repetition
84
Image word's meaning Use cognates in study Keyword Method Image word form
38 34 31 22
From the figures in Table 2, we find that Japanese learners
87
84
Least Helpful Strategies 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
88
not only make use of bilingual dictionaries, but that an overwhelming majority (95%) feel they are helpful. In contrast, only 77% think monolingual dictionaries are helpful. Attention to formal properties is considered beneficial, as four of the most highly valued Consolidation Strategies involve form (say the new word aloud, written repetition, study spelling, and verbal repetition). The remaining strategies are varied, with at least one strategy represented from each of the major strategy groups. When the MOST USED list is compared to the MOST HELPFUL, we find that they have six strategies in common. They are: Bilingual Dictionary, Written Repetition, Verbal Repetition, Say a New Word Aloud, Study a Word's Spelling, and Take Notes in Class. We can conclude that these are all strategies which learners already use and believe beneficial. In contrast, although Study Synonyms and Antonyms received 88% helpful votes, usage was only reported at 41%. Similarly, the usage figure for Continue to Study over Time was 45%, Ask Teacher for a Paraphrase 42%, and Use Pictures/Gestures to Understand Meaning was 47%. Such high helpfulness ratings for strategies which less than half of the respondents reported using suggest that learners can see value in strategies which they do not currently use. These results imply that learners may be willing to try new strategies if they are introduced to and instructed in them. Additional data on learners' perceptions of helpfulness come from the rating task. Respondents were asked to rate the five most helpful strategies in each section. The results were tallied in two ways. The first allotted one point to each strategy rated in the top five, regardless of position. If a strategy was mentioned on every survey, it would receive 600 points. This method does not allow for the difference between a 1st place ranking and a 5th place ranking. To take this into account, a weighted tally method was also used. It gave a 1st place vote 5 points, a 2nd place vote 4 points and so on down to a 5th place vote 1 point. The maximum weighted score would be 3000 (600 first place votes 5 points). The results of both scoring methods are given in Table 3. TABLE 3 HELPFULNESS RATINGS RESULTS Strategy
Numerical Rating Weighted Rating /600 max
/3000 max
Discovery of Word's Meaning Bilingual Dictionary Monolingual Dictionary Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym Guess from textual context
302
466 299 285
1035
1669 942 832
Analyze pictures or gestures Ask teacher for a sentence with the new word
277
226
936
606
Consolidation of Word's Meaning Written repetition 364 Verbal repetition 243 Continue study over time Learn idiom words together 224 Say a new word aloud when studying Connect word with synonyms and antonyms Study sound of word 145 Study spelling of word 145 Take notes in class
240 215 173 133
1362 665 610 438 403
732 666 435 400
The results obtained from the two scoring methods are very similar. When comparing these results with the Helpful/Not Helpful results, we also find a great deal of agreement. All of the most helpful strategies in Table 2 appear in Table 3. Once again we find the bilingual dictionary at the top of the list, with written repetition in second place. The overall agreement of the results should allow us to accept them with some confidence. The strategy Use a Monolingual Dictionary is one item incongruent with the Helpful/Not Helpful results. Seventy-seven percent of respondents judged it as helpful, placing it in fifth position in the 'Discovery Meaning' section, but in Table 3 it is in second place. Still, both figures are relatively high. Taken together, they suggest that, although only 35% of respondents said they now use monolingual dictionaries, learners do seem to realize their potential utility and might be more willing than teachers suspect to try a good monolingual learner's dictionary. The survey was also designed to isolate changes in strategy use and perceptions as Japanese learners progress through the school system and into adult English classes. Thirteen strategies exhibited a clear trend of change (at least a 20 point difference) in usage between the age groups, while fourteen strategies were isolated in the perception of helpfulness category. TABLE 4 TRENDS OF VOCABULARY STRATEGY USE Strategy Written repetition 91 Study spelling of word 89
JHS HS 89 77
75 70
U 50 60
A (%)
Word lists 67 67 50 33 Use textbook vocabulary section 66 57 42 Flash cards 51 29 12 10
29
Bilingual dictionary 77 73 95 97 Guess from textual context 47 69 93 89 Image word's meaning 37 47 57 58 Ask teacher for paraphrase25 37 46 61 or synonym Skip or pass new word 25 29 55 57 Analyze part of speech 20 29 37 43 Connect word to personal 17 33 45 experience Part of speech (remembering) 12 27 40 41
53
JHS = Junior High School (Years 7-9) HS = High School (Years 10-12) U = University A = Adult
Research has shown that the patterns of strategy use can change over time as a learner either matures or becomes more proficient in the target language. Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985), studying Mexican-American children in bilingual classrooms, used an implicational scaling technique with allowed them to determine the sequence of strategy use. Their subjects first used receptive and self-contained strategies like repetition, memorization, and formulaic expression. Later they moved on to strategies which permit interaction (requests for clarification or assistance) or which are metacognitive (elaboration and monitoring). The present study confirms that the pattern of use for some strategies does change for Japanese learners as a whole. From Table 4, we find that although written repetition is a mainstay of Japanese learning, its use decreases as Japanese learners mature. Likewise, the emphasis on spelling and form also seems to become less pronounced. Using paired-associate words (L2-L1) on lists and cards becomes less common as Japanese age. Conversely, many of the strategies that become more important with age involve the kind of 'deeper processing' (imaging, association, analysis) that the Depth of Processing Hypothesis (Craik and Lockhart,1972; Craik and Tulving, 1975) suggests. These strategies require a greater cognitive effort, but more mature learners seem to realize their value. This study does not shed any light on why the patterns of usage change, but previous research suggests that language proficiency (Bialystok, 1979; O'Malley et al., 1985), the type of task being done (O'Malley et al., 1985; Abraham and Vann, 1987; Chamot, 1987), and culture (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990) all play a
part in strategy selection.
TABLE 5 TRENDS OF JAPANESE LEARNERS' PERCEPTIONS OF HELPFULNESS Strategy Word lists Flash cards
JHS HS 82 79
79 70
Connect word with synonyms 76 85 and antonyms Ask teacher to use new word 64 in sentence Analyze part of speech 64 68 Part of speech (remembering) 55 Analyze affixes and roots 52 Guess from textual context 49 Use scales for gradable adjectives42 Connect word to personal 37 experience Affixes and roots (remembering) 37 Use semantic maps 28 Associate word with its 27 49 coordinates Use physical action when studying23
U
57 59
51 53
93
99
71
85
A (%)
91
83 87 67 85 85 63 80 79 68 89 87 59 73 75 57 75 79 60 71 42 53 65 74 53
55
74 66 65
Congruent with their actual drop in usage, perceptions of word list and flash card helpfulness also decrease. Many of the 'deeper processing' strategies are perceived as being more helpful as Japanese learners mature, paralleling their increased use. Respondents were encouraged to write down any additional strategies which they did not find on the survey. Thirty-seven surveys (6.1%) contained such responses. Most were variations of the strategies already contained on the survey. The original strategies were mainly concerned with increasing language input for learners. The offered strategies detailed three main ways of doing this: by interacting with native-speakers or other students who had studied overseas; by learning words from English-language media, ie., movies, posters, television programs, songs; and by using study aids, such as listening to tapes on which word lists had been recorded to improve aural understanding of the words and putting English word labels on the objects in a learner's office or home to help remember them by.
Another original strategy was testing oneself with word tests. This strategy came from the members of a single junior high school class, with 8 out of 50 students mentioning it. It was not mentioned by any other class or group. Investigation showed a previous teacher had stressed it to his students in that one class. Whether this is seen as encouraging because some learners mentioned a taught strategy, or discouraging because of the low number to do so, is left to the reader. Implications Many commentators have advocated the use of monolingual dictionaries in the classroom. There are several pedagogically sound reasons for this, but one of the most important ingredients for success is learner acceptance. Although bilingual dictionaries are clearly the most favored, the relatively high helpfulness rating for monolingual dictionaries (77%) indicates that learners may more readily accept their use (perhaps alongside a bilingual dictionary) than has previously been assumed. The assumption that a strategy is equally useful at all stages of one's lifetime is called into question by the survey results. Table 4 illustrates that many of the study strategies taught to young learners are abandoned as they grow older. With word lists and flash cards, at least, we have evidence that this is because they are no longer seen as helpful. It may well be that some learning strategies are more beneficial at certain ages than others, and that learners naturally mature into using different strategies. If this is true, then we must take our learners cognitive maturity and language proficiency into account when recommending strategies. Where some strategies become increasingly used over time, it seems prudent to introduce young learners to a variety of strategies, including those which they are likely to use more as they grow older. The currently popular communicative style of teaching emphasizes meaningful interactive activities over form. However, given the generally favorable response to strategies utilizing affixes and roots, to both help discover a new word's meaning and consolidate it once introduced, it may be time to reemphasize this aspect of morphology. Nation (1990) suggests that there are a limited number of affixes, and the time spent in teaching them could be well rewarded in terms of improved vocabulary acquisition. Group work has been become more frequent as instructors have tried to move away from totally teacher-fronted classrooms. Given the advantages that Dansereau (1988) describes, it is somewhat disappointing that only 51% of learners feel groupwork is helpful for studying and practicing vocabulary, implying a widespread impression that vocabulary study is an activity best achieved individually. Teachers may want to make their students aware of the possibilities of groupwork for vocabulary learning.
Conclusion This chapter has proposed a taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies, and has given some initial indication of their level of usage and learners' attitudes towards them (at least in Japan; Schmitt et al., in press, suggests that results may be different for learners with other L1s). The proposed taxonomy and survey research presented in this chapter has likely raised numerous questions in the reader's mind. If these questions serve to generate further discussion or additional research, thus leading to the development of this aspect of vocabulary study, the chapter's aims will have been well fulfilled.
Acknowledgements The cooperation of a number of people is necessary to carry out a large scale study like this. Thanks to the teachers and companies who participated: Alan Bessette, Tom Colton, Bruce Evans, Tom Foran, Evan Jones, Tom Koch, Donna Tatsuki, the NIC Company, the Sumikin Company, and the YMCA. Discussion with Nick Ellis was useful in improving the survey design. Stephanie Swoll translated the survey into Japanese. J.D. Brown helped tabulate the initial results. Insightful comments on earlier drafts by David Beglar, Michael McCarthy, Steve McDonough, Paul Nation, Ann Ryan, Diane Schmitt, and Gladys Valcourt all helped improve the final version. A brief preliminary analysis of this survey was reported in Schmitt and Schmitt (1993).
REFERENCES Abraham, R.G. and Vann, R.J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Ahmed, M.O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In Meara, P. (ed.) Beyond Words. London: CILT. Aitchison, J. (1987). Words in the Mind. Oxford: Blackwell. Allen, V.F. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Asher, J.J. (1977). Learning Another Language Through Actions. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks. Atkinson, R.C. and Raugh, M.R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 104: 126-33. Baddeley, A. (1990). Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Baxter, J. (1980). The dictionary and vocabulary behavior: A single word or a handful? TESOL Quarterly 14, 3: 325-336. Bellezza, F.S. (1981). Mnemonic devices: Classification, characteristics, and criteria. Review of Educational Research 51, 2: 247-275. Bellezza, F.S. (1983). The spatial-arrangement mnemonic. Journal of Educational Psychology 75, 6: 830-837. Bialystok, E. (1979). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review 35: 372-94. Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal 65: 24-35. Bousfield, W.A. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology 49: 229-40. Bower, G.H. (1973). How to ...uh...remember. Psychology Today 7: 63-70. Bower, G.H. and Clark, M.C. (1969). Narrative stories as mediators for social learning. Psychonomic Science 14, 4: 181-82. Brown, D.F. (1980). Eight Cs and a G. Guidelines 3: 1-17.
Chamot, A.U. (1984). Identification of ESL learning strategies. Paper presented at the 18th Annual TESOL Convention. Houston, Texas, 1984. Chamot, A.U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Chamot, A.U. and Rubin, J. (1994). Comments on Janie Rees-Miller's "A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. Two readers react... TESOL Quarterly 28, 4: 771-776. Channell, J. (1981). Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching. ELTJ 35, 2: 115-122. Chesterfield, R. and Chesterfield, K.B. (1985). Natural order in children's use of second language learning strategies. Applied Linguistics 6, 1: 45-59. Clarke D.F. and Nation, I.S.P. (1980). Guessing the meanings of words from context: Strategy and techniques. System 8, 3: 211-220. Cofer, C.N., Bruce, D.R., and Reicher, G. M. (1966). Clustering in free recall as a function of certain methodological variations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 71: 858-866. Cohen, A . D. (1990). Language Learning. New York: Newbury House. Cohen, A. D. and Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: Investigating the role of mnemonic association. System 8, 3: 221-235. Cohen, A.D. and Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3, 2: 221-236. Cook, L.K. and Mayer, R.E. (1983). Reading Strategies Training for Meaningful Learning from Prose. In Pressley, M. and Levin, J. (eds.) Cognitive Strategy Research. New York: Springer Verlag. Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671-84. Craik, F.I.M. and Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 268-84. Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E.T., and Alexander, P.A. (eds.) Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation. New York: Academic Press. Decker, W.H. and Wheatley, P.C. (1982). Spatial grouping, imagery, and free
recall. Perceptual and Motor Skills 55: 45-46. Ellis, G. and Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gairns, R. and Redman. S. (1986). Working with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goulden, R., Nation, P. and Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics 11, 4: 341-63. Groninger, L.D. (1971). Mnemonic imagery and forgetting. Psychonomic Science 23, 2: 161-163. Horwitz, E.K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal 72: 283294. Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students' strategies. Foreign Language Annals 9, 2: 117-129. Huckin, T., Haynes, M., and Coady, J. (eds.). (1993). Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism 15: 59-92. Kopstein, F.F. and Roshal, S.M. (1954). Learning foreign vocabulary from pictures vs. words. American Psychologist 9: 407-408. Kramsch, C.J. (1979). Word watching: Learning vocabulary becomes a hobby. Foreign Language Annals, 12, 2: 153-158. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Levin, J.R. (1983). Pictorial strategies for school learning: Practical illustrations. In Pressley, M. and Levin, J. (eds.) Cognitive Strategy Research. New York: Springer Verlag. Li, A. (1983). Low frequency words in scientific writing. Unpublished paper. Cited in Nation, 1990. Marchbanks, G. and Levin, H. (1965). Cues by which children recognize words. Journal of Educational Psychology 56, 2: 57-61. Martin, M. (1984). Advanced vocabulary teaching: The problem of synonyms. The Modern Language Journal 68, 2:130-136.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, M.J. and O'Dell, F. (1994). English Vocabulary in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonough, S.H. (1995). Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. London: Edward Arnold. Meara, P. (1987) . Vocabulary in a second language, Vol. 2. Specialized Bibliography 4. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT). Mikulecky, B. (l990). A Short Course in Teaching Reading Skills. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Milton, J. and Meara, P.M. (1995). How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign language. ITL. 107-108: 17-34. Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H., and Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Education Series 7. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Narang, V., Motta, J., and Bouchard, D. (1974). Word identification for ESL English as a second language readers. ERIC Document ED 098501. Nation, I.S.P. (1977). The combining arrangement: Some techniques. The Modern Language Journal 61, 3: 89-94. Reprinted in English Teaching Forum 17, 1 (1979) 12-16, 20. Nation, I.S.P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC Journal 13, 1: 14-36. Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House . Nation, P. (1994). The word on words: An interview with Paul Nation. The Language Teacher 19, 2: 5-7. Nattinger, J.R. and DeCarrico, J.S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 0 'Malley, J,M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzares, G., Kupper, L., and Russo, R.P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 35, 1: 21-46. O'Malley, J.M., Russo, R.P., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., and Kupper,
G. (1983). A Study of Learning Strategies for Acquiring Skills in Speaking and Understanding English as a Second Language: Uses of Learning Strategies for Different Language Activities by Students at Different Language Proficiency Levels. Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research Associates. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Newbury House. Paivio, A. (1983). Strategies in language learning. In Pressley, M. and Levin, J. (eds.). Cognitive Strategy Research. New York: Springer Verlag. Paivio, A. and Desrochers, A. (1979). Effects of an imagery mnemonic on second language recall and comprehension. Canadian Journal of Psychology 33, 1: 17-28. Peters, A. (1983). The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal 51, 2: 7375. Politzer, R.L. and McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19: 103-123. Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., and Miller, G.E. (1982). The keyword method compared to alternative vocabulary learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology 7: 50-60. Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., Kuiper, N.A., Bryant, S.L., and Michener, S. (1982a). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies: Additional comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 693-707. Presseley, M., Levin, J.R., and Delaney, J.D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research 52: 61-91. Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., Digdon, N., Bryant, S.L., McGivern, J.E., and Ray, K. (1982b). Re-examining the "limitations" of the mnemonic keyword method. Working Paper No. 329. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin. Purpura, J.E. (1994). The role of learner strategies in language learning and testing. Paper given at the Thai TESOL Conference, Bangkok, January, 1994. Redman, S. and Ellis, R. (1989). A Way with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly 10, 1: 77-89.
Ringbom, H. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence and the foreign language learning process. In Kellerman, E. and Sharwood Smith, M. (eds.) Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon. Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9: 41-51. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Russell, P. (1979). The Brain Book. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Saltz, E. and Donnenwerth-Nolan, S. (1981). Does motoric imagery facilitate memory for sentences? A selective interference test. Journal of Verbal Behavior and Verbal Learning 20: 322-332. Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners' approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages. Modern Language Journal 79: 15-28. Schmitt, N., Bird, R., Tseng, A-C., and Yang, Y-C. (in press). Vocabulary learning strategies: Student perspectives and cultural considerations. Independence. Schmitt, N. and Schmitt, D.R. (1993). Identifying and assessing vocabulary learning strategies. Thai TESOL Bulletin 5, 4: 27-33. Schmitt, N. and Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions. ELTJ 49, 2: 133-143. Scholfield, P.J. (1980). Explaining meaning by paraphrase: Problems and principles. Guidelines 3: 24-37. Scholfield, P.J. (1982). The role of bilingual dictionaries in ESL/EFL: A positive view. Guidelines 4, 1: 84-98. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Sökmen, A.J. (1992). Common Threads. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Steingart, S.K. and Glock, M.D. (1979). Imagery and the recall of connected discourse. Reading Research Quarterly 15, 1: 66-83. Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31: 304-18. Stoffer, I. (1995). University foreign language students' choice of vocabulary learning strategies as related to individual difference variables. University of
Alabama: Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Thompson, I. (1987). Memory in language learning. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Timko, H.G. (1970). Configuration as a cue in the word recognition of beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Education 39, 2: 68-69. Tomaszczyk, J. (1979). Dictionaries: Users and uses. Glottodidactica 12: 103119. Webber, N.E. (1978). Pictures and words as stimuli in learning foreign language responses. The Journal of Psychology 98: 57-63. Wenden, A.L. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds.). (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Word Routes. (1994-). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In Filmore, C.J., Wang, W-S.Y., and Kempler, D. (eds.) Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press.
